The case involves the alleged violation of foreign contribution regulations in the project, which intended to provide homes to the poor who lost their houses in the floods of 2018.

The case involves the alleged violation of foreign contribution regulations in the project, which intended to provide homes to the poor who lost their houses in the floods of 2018.

The case involves the alleged violation of foreign contribution regulations in the project, which intended to provide homes to the poor who lost their houses in the floods of 2018.

Kochi: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's former Principal Secretary M Sivasankar was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Tuesday night.

Sivsankar, who was questioned by the ED in connection with the Life Mission project case for the past three days, was arrested at 11.45pm on Tuesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The case involves the alleged violation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulations) Act in the project, which intended to provide homes to the poor who lost their houses in the floods of 2018.

The former bureaucrat will be presented to the Ernakulam Principal Sessions court  after a medical check-up, ED officials informed.

Sivasankar is being arrested by a central agency for the fourth time. He had retired from the service on January 31.

He was summoned after the ED recently completed a few rounds of questioning of Swapna Suresh, the prime accused in the gold smuggling case, and interrogated her along with two other accused in the same case.

ADVERTISEMENT

The CBI had earlier arrested Santhosh Eapen, Managing Director of Unitac Builder, Kochi besides questioning top government officials, including Sivasankar, in the Life Mission case.

The case surfaced after the gold smuggling case came to light in June 2020 in which Sivasankar was jailed.

Both Swapna Suresh and Sarith employed in the UAE Consulate, were later found to have a role in Life Mission funds misappropriation too.

The state government then had approached the Kerala High Court to stop the probe, but it dismissed the pleas and said that an ongoing CBI probe should continue in the case involving senior government officers and contractors.

ADVERTISEMENT

The case

The Life Mission project aims at providing houses for poor at Wadakkanchery in Thrissur district of Kerala.

The CBI had in 2020 filed an FIR in a Kochi court under section 120 B of the IPC and section 35 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 2010 on a complaint by the then Wadakancherry Congress MLA, Anil Akkara, listing Santosh Eappen as the first accused and Sane Ventures as the second accused.

The two companies had undertaken the construction based on the agreement entered with them by Red Crescent, an international humanitarian movement, which had agreed to provide Rs 20 crore towards the Life Mission project.

The CBI had then taken a position that private company Unitac, carrying out construction on behalf of a Kerala government body, did not get the contract through a tender.

The project entailed construction of 97 apartments and a health centre, and it was alleged that both the gold smuggling case accused held talks with Unitac and fixed a commission of 30 per cent of the project cost -- 20 per cent to a UAE official and 10 per cent to Swapna Suresh and other co-accused for approvals and other file movements.

The alleged FCRA violation and corruption in the project had snowballed into a major political issue at that time with opposition parties charging that Swapna Suresh had admitted before an NIA court that she had received Rs 1 crore as commission from the project. She had reportedly claimed that the money was for Sivasankar.

The CBI claimed that Sivasankar had met Santhosh Eapen at his chamber along with Swapna Suresh and assured full support.

UV Jose, the then Life Mission Chief Executive Officer, was also allegedly present at this meeting.

However, Life Mission CEO had submitted before the court that Unitac and Sane Ventures had undertaken the construction based on the agreement entered into with them by Red Crescent and had directly accepted foreign contributions from Red Crescent, which is a foreign agency.

The petition also said the companies which signed an agreement with the Red Crescent do not come under the categories of persons prohibited from receiving any foreign contribution as per Section 3 of the FCRA.

(With IANS and PTI inputs.)